buddug

James Barber wrote: "It will look like we're on an industrial estate, increase capacity and vehicle speeds. It will as a result have more collisions and collisions of greater severity where people are injured. The proposed changes would cost ?30,000-50,000." For once, I agree with James!! I do wish Southwark Council would just bugger off and stop trying to spoil East Dulwich at every turn. Apart from the aesthetic damage to the area, cars already go too fast down Lordship Lane and the money would be better spent elsewhere. Go, James!

Aarghh!!! James, call your dogs off!! :))

Edcam, let's focus on Bunty shall we, and not on me.

Showboat wrote: "shouldn't we be encouraging politicians who consistently engage with the public like James does?" What, encouraging politicians who consistently lie, to their constituents and fellow councillors as he did at the ED community council, and spin, and ignore the wishes of a clear majority, thereby rejecting the democratic process? And as to my own 'personal' gripe, it was simply to put another view among all the sycophancy that for all his 'can I help' stuff, when it comes to serious issues, he can't help. As he told me: 'I don't know the head of housing'. So that's how it works, does it. However, what's more important on this thread now is Bunty's post. I really commiserate - when I was burgled last year, a watch my mum gave me before she died was taken, irreplaceable, so I know how you feel.

Then you are all such sheep! You should have been at the ED community council last night and you'd have seen his true colours. But hey ho, keep believing!

That's telling me, then!

I think picture posts are the way to go, fazer!

No, James, don't do it! (I know you're itching to!):))

No, Huguenot. I was responding to fazer71's gentle dig. Do pay attention.

Absolutely, fazer71. That's how the majority of us felt last night, too!

James, I take your point. But it's just that you do it whenever someone originally posts they've been burgled. It's just highly irritating. And I'm afraid I do get a feeling it's more to do with you blowing your own trumpet that as an East Dulwich Ward councillor, you are partly to thank for the statistics going down. I may be wrong.

I may not agree with you on this issue fazer71, but I like your sense of humour! :)) (There, She'llsurvive, I've started already!)

She'llsurvive wrote: "The whole debate and 47 pages all with significant amounts of vitriol leaves me much sadder about my neighbourhood and those who have been happy to stand behind such aggressive behaviour supposedly in the name of democracy." I'm sorry you feel like that, she'llsurvive. For me, last night made me even prouder of my neighbourhood, the way local businesses and residents all came together, minus a handful of people, to fight for East Dulwich and its uniqueness and to stop it from being turned into Camberwell high street. It was a show of real community co-operation and power. And it was very much a case of fighting for democracy, something the yes vote councillors rejected, astoundingly (ironic, considering they call themselves LibDems). But democracy also includes, thank God, freedom of speech, and the right to criticise our representatives when they fall short, especially when they resort to lying to their constituents and fellow councillors, dissembling and going so far as to dismiss the majority vote simply on the basis that there was such a low voter turnout. I wonder if they would do the same in a General Election if their party was voted in with such an overwhelming majority but with an equally low turnout. But it's all over now - except for those in Derwent of course, although they have now received an assurance that there will be a concerted attempt to find another solution to their problems - and we can all go back to being nice again.

Showboat, do you really think it appropriate for him to play party politics immediately someone reports a burglary on the forum? "Oh yes, look at us LibDems, it's thanks to us that crime is down in East Dulwich, blah blah, statistics, blah, free markers for your belongings, blah blah".

James Barber wrote: "At the East Dulwich ward Safer Neighbourhood Team panel - held at ED Police station last Wednesday 18/1 - local Police stated that East Dulwich WARD is bucking the current rising crime trend. Lowest reported crime rate for three years. That no consolation if you've still been a victim of crime." But then he goes on: "They specifically said no Xmas binge occurred of burglaries... blah blah." He's doing it again! Someone posts they've been burgled and he immediately jumps in quoting low crime statistics like a broken record. Unbelievable. Please, James, just go away!

James Barber wrote: "Anyone who know Cllr Mitchel and Shimell will know they do not do what I want all the time. As they hadn't experienced the forum feedback they were more robust on this issue than me." You voted for a CPZ. Yet now you turn on your own 'partners in crime'. Dear, dear. And as to: "Happy to meet you or anyone else to discuss local issues." - I was going to ask you to resign, James. Will you now do so?

Huguenot wrote: "Why buddug thinks James is going to come out into the foyer to be accosted by a furio who wants to get their freehold for nothing is beyond me." You really should read people's posts more carefully, Huguenot. It was in fact your friend James Barber who posted that he'd been "talking to Southwark accountants if they could they'd give freeholds away to tenants as technicalyl they show as an asset but in reality they're a liability and give poor service to boot." I had posted: "I had cost Southwark taxpayers ?10,000 in lost payments due to the section 20 notices, plus compensation and damages paid us by Southwark due to cowboy contractors over the past 13 years - ?10,000 paid for by taxpayers! I said it would have been cheaper to just have given us the freehold when it became apparent things were going so wrong." Not quite the same thing. You seem to have the same propensity to twist the truth as James, Huguenot. Why are you so upset that democracy was upheld at last night's meeting. I suppose there isn't much of that in Singapore...

Shame on them indeed. What was particularly galling was to see the constant grin on James's face even while he was being held to account from the floor for lying about the figures. I for one find their total disregard for democracy sinister. Have the LibDems morphed into Marxists, just like New Labour did under Tony Bliar?

By the way, easy tiger, thanks for your praise, but it's undeserved, sadly. It wasn't me who made the presentation, although I did heckle enthusiastically! And Loz, Barrie Hargroves amazingly said he would abide by the committee's vote. So it's all over, until the next time this topic rears its ugly head. But hopefully by then its main proponents - Barber, Mitchell and Shimmell - will have sunk without trace.

Baffling, isn't it?

Have just got back from the meeting. A victory for democracy. However, what was truly astonishing was that James Barber was spinning like a top right up to the end when he voted for option 4. In fact, the figures he quoted about the consultation were so blatantly untrue, he had to be interrupted by several members of the public reminding him and the committee of the actual voting figures. Because of the way in which he tried to mislead both the audience and his fellow councillors tonight I feel he should stand down tomorrow and apologise to his constituents. Interestingly, but not surprisingly, he also revealed another side to him. When we broke for refreshments after the vote - and it states in the council's order of business: BREAK AT 9.00 PM Opportunity for residents to talk to Councillors and Officers - he did not show his face in the foyer. I was waiting for him to come out so I could ask him if he was now going to resign, and to explain his behaviour. When it became apparent he wasn't going to appear, I went back into the committee room to seek him out but the meeting had resumed. James, you are a coward.

Thanks.

No, Hugo, just to help see off the goths, visigoths and barbarians at the gate who want to destroy East Dulwich. (By the way, what's the weather like in Singapore today? ;-))

Thanks for that. So CPZ issue starts at 7.45pm, is that right, or could they bring it forward as they did at the Camberwell CC?

James wrote: "Camberwell councillors had no streets wanting controlled parking. They could'nt vote for controlled parking on a different community council area - that would set a really awkward precendent. So of the two options they were practically being asked to consider they chose option 2 over option 1." er, have you any idea of how a democracy works?